Gujarat Court April 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dayaprakash Trikambhai Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj34; (1969)GLR234
Sheth, J.* * * * *1. A short, but an interesting question arises in this appeal.2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Government Gazette on 3rd September, 1958. In pursuance of a notice, issued under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant-claimant filed his claim statement on 20th August, 1959. At that time, on the land under acquisition he had not planted the plantain plants. The award was given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10-11-1959. The possession of the Land was taken on 5-12-1959, i.e. after the award. The Land Acquisition Officer had made the Panchnama at the time of taking possession of the land. That Panchnama is Ex. 40 of 29-11-1959. It means that the Panchnama was also made after the award was declared. At that time, the Panchnama of the standing crops was made. The Panchnama reveals that there were 2,000 plants of plantains standing on the land under acquisition, and the possession of the land alongwith those plants...
Chaki Jakeria Abdulla Vs. Memon Ismail Umar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj122
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. A suit allowed to be filed as a suit in forma pauperis was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation. In appeal also the same view about limitation was taken and therefore the appellate Court held that there is nothing to show that the decree of the trial Court is contrary to law or someusage having the force of law or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. Therefore, the appellate Court refused to grant permission to file the appeal in forma pauperis.2. In revision it is contended that having admitted the application for permission to file the appeal in forma pauperis and having started the inquiry into pauperism under the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 44, Civil Procedure Code, it was not open to the appellate Court to hold that the decree is not contrary to law etc.3. The scheme of Order 44, Civil Procedure Code is like this:Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 reads as under:--'Any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee requir...
Liladhar Pathubhai Vs. Pravinchandra Nagjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR976
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. This civil revision application is against a decree for eviction passed against the applicant who was the original defendant. The decree was passed under Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) and the short point for consideration is whether that provision applied or whether Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Act) applied.2. The material facts are not now in dispute. The applicant was the tenant of the opponents in the premises in question at Rs. 12/- per month. The tenancy was from the 18th of the month to the 17th of the next month according to the British Calender month. On 8-2-1963 the opponents gave a notice to the applicant calling upon him to vacate the premises at the end of 17-3-1963. On the date of the notice the rent in arrears was Rs. 133. 13 which were the arrears fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›